It’s baffling why Vaishnaw is not the Minister of State for Fisheries & Animal Husbandry yet. Maybe Modiji has a bigger mismanagement opportunity in mind for him.

Microsoft is announcing new capabilities for its "Sovereign Cloud". And where better to make that announcement than Paris, where France has publicly declared it wants to remove its dependence on US tech companies. If you add the word "Sovereign" in front of Cloud, Microsoft can no longer access your data, and it’s magically protected from surveillance by them and a foreign government. 🇮🇪 That's Irish sarcasm. 🇺🇸 The US CLOUD Act allows the US government to compel US companies to hand over customer data, no matter where in the world it’s stored. 🇫🇷 Hosting data in France doesn't protect it from US government demands because calling the service Sovereign Cloud doesn't change US law. Microsoft's Sovereign Cloud offers different levels of protection. By default, Microsoft manages encryption keys, but customers can choose to control their own keys, keep them outside Microsoft's infrastructure and run services without connecting to Microsoft's cloud. Why Microsoft controls encryption keys by default should be questioned. That doesn't seem like a customer benefit. Data sovereignty means controlling who can access your data, not who promises not to access it. That comes down to who controls the technology, who can decrypt the data and which companies can be forced to hand it over. We saw this with Palantir and the NHS. Both denied that Palantir staff had full access to patients’ personally identifiable information and health records. I challenged those claims with a technical analysis explaining why it would be impossible for Palantir not to have access. Both disputed my analysis until that access was exposed. Don't just trust what tech companies or governments say their surveillance legislation or technology does. Examine what the technology is designed to do, how it works and, most importantly, what it makes technically possible. Or just ask me and I'll tell you if I haven't already written about it. Most organisations don't configure complicated systems properly, especially when it comes to cybersecurity. So it's guaranteed that some customers will forget or won't even realise that Microsoft still controls the encryption keys by default, and can use them to access their data. You only have to look at OpenAI for a recent example of how easily insider threats can gain access when companies implement poor security processes and systems. 💡 Customers paying for this specific cloud service to protect their most sensitive data are being asked to trust a US tech company that works closely with governments and intelligence agencies in the US, Canada, UK, Australia and Israel. 🇮🇱 In 2025, an investigation exposed how Israel’s Intelligence Unit 8200 used Microsoft Azure to store and analyse millions of intercepted Palestinian phone calls. Microsoft worked closely with the intelligence unit to build the infrastructure. It wasn't just a cloud provider unaware of how its technology was being used. The surveillance project followed a meeting between Microsoft’s CEO and the unit’s commander, so it was forged at the highest level. Microsoft only terminated the unit’s access to certain Azure and AI services after the surveillance operation was exposed. I'm not claiming Microsoft will misuse Sovereign Cloud. I'm saying its technology already supports mass surveillance of civilians around the world, and that won't stop because governments are the tech industry's biggest customers. Government contracts help turn tech companies into multibillion-dollar giants, giving them a massive incentive to foster those relationships. Data sovereignty is a worthwhile objective, but achieving complete sovereignty requires absolute control over more than where data is stored. It means controlling the infrastructure, software, encryption keys, administration, maintenance and every third party with access to data. Even local companies rely on foreign tech providers, contractors, suppliers and infrastructure. Any of those relationships can introduce external access or legal obligations beyond the customer's jurisdiction. Moving data into a local data centre doesn't eliminate those dependencies. Neither does buying technology marketed as sovereign. Complete data sovereignty is something to aspire to, but maintaining exclusive control across every technical and commercial dependency is practically impossible. It's like expecting every drop of water from your tap to come from one specific well, then expecting it to return to that same well after going down the drain, without ever entering another water system. "Sovereign Cloud" is branding and a new positioning statement like "Super Intelligence". The technology might be useful, but clever marketing encourages customers to associate a product name with protections they wish they had, rather than what the technology actually enables. As usual, I'm not here to repeat what tech companies or governments claim they're doing for customers and citizens. I'm here to explain what legislation and technology actually do and what the consequences are when specific people make public announcements. Some examples of what they say: 🇪🇺 The European Commission claims to protect EU citizens from surveillance by US tech companies while pushing Chat Control, which would require US tech companies around the world to scan everyone's public and private communications. In fact, any company in the world now has the right to scan everyone's private communications. 🇬🇧 The UK government claims mandatory digital IDs will stop identity fraud, while making everyday services more convenient. More than 25 governments around the world are justifying surveillance, identity verification and data collection as necessary to protect children from harmful content and dangerous people, while claiming adults also need protection from addictive designs that harm their mental health. It's propaganda packaged as public safety and clever marketing. Governments and trillion-dollar tech companies meet at G7 summits, announce partnerships and tell the public that new legislation, identity verification for account recovery and features marketed as convenient are all in their best interests. We are expected to accept digital and physical surveillance for our protection and safety. We're told it's necessary for national security, protecting children from groomers, preventing fraud and stopping terrorism. People who commit crimes represent a tiny fraction of society, yet governments propose systems that affect entire populations, including people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. When someone on here asked me, "What do you have to hide that you don’t want anyone reading your messages?" I replied, "That’s none of your business. And that’s the point." The next time you read an announcement from a tech company, hear an AI lobbyist making extreme claims about either doom or utopia, or listen to a policymaker or politician, ask yourself: How do they benefit, and how do the people they work with behind closed doors benefit? Pretend you're wearing Meta's creepy spyware glasses, except they show you everyone and everything through the worst possible interpretation of what they're saying and why. That's a good starting point. (I'm all for AR and VR. But I'll only trust people who've earned it, not those who've spent 20+ years proving they can't be trusted to lick a stamp without reading the contents of everyone's envelopes.) ------------ 📻 Tomorrow morning at 6:30am Irish time, I'm joining Joe Lynam, Newstalk's Business Editor and former BBC senior business correspondent, on Breakfast Business, broadcast nationally across Ireland. I'm going to discuss how Ireland's dependence on US tech companies is compromising people's privacy across the EU and beyond, along with my technical investigation into election interference in Brazil involving Meta and TikTok. You can find this on my (free) Substack. Link in my X bio. Joe has already shared my technical analysis with Meta, and the company has responded. I haven't seen what Meta said yet, but I'll have the opportunity to challenge its response live on air. Joe Lynam: @JoeBLynam Listen live: newstalk.com/listen-live 📽️ Tomorrow evening, I’m being interviewed for the Duas e Tanto podcast by Carol Pires, NYT contributor and screenwriter of the Oscar-nominated The Edge of Democracy, and Marina Dias, The Washington Post’s Brazil correspondent. Carol Pires: @pirescarol Marina Dias: @falamarina